All Members present are
required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as
possible thereafter

(i)Any disclosable
pecuniary interests and / or

(ii)Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in
respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this
meeting

NOTES:

·Members are reminded that they must not participate
in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest

·As well as an interest of the Member, this includes
any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the
Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the
Member is living as a spouse or civil partner)

·Members with a significant personal interest may
participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that
interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial.

Written questions from
the public can be submitted no later than seven days prior to the
published date of the annual or any ordinary public meeting, for
which the Commissioner will be invited to provide a written
response by noon on the day before the meeting, which will be
circulated to Panel Members and the questioner.

Cllr Ellwood raised
an issue and expressed disappointment about the lack of
co-operation by the Serious Organised Crime partnership with
Guildford Borough Council over their anti-slavery
initiative. Detective Superintendent
Karen Mizzi explained that this was the first time she had heard
this and that partners were encouraged to work
together. She went on to say that this
was an intelligence led service, prioritisation need to happen and
therefore car washes were only targeted when the intelligence
showed a need. Cllr Ellwood further
reported that there was a local meeting next week and asked what he
could do to make the partnership work better. Detective Superintendent Karen Mizzi would look
into the issues mentioned. The
Commissioner reported that he had asked the Government Minister if
a register for nail bars and car washes could be set
up.

In response to a
query about scrutinisation of the partnership, the Commissioner
explained that a member of his office was also a member of the
partnership. The relationship had
changed since the beginning and he encouraged his team to get
involved and report back to him. He
also had performance meetings with the Chief Constable every six
weeks.

Detective
Superintendent Mizzi explained that her reporting year was April to
April and therefore it was now half way through the financial
year. She would share the latest
six-month details with the Panel as soon as it was
released. She would also have to
confirm the term ‘unknown exploitation’ as used in the
report, following the meeting.

There was some
discussion about possible effects of Brexit on different organised
groups coming into the country. The
Commissioner explained that there was much high level work being
undertaken to minimise any issues following Brexit.

The Panel received
the report of the Surrey Police Group that set out the finances of
both the Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) and Chief Constable
(CC) financial position as at 30 September 2018, comparing the
expenditure and income incurred by both Surrey Police and the
Office of the Surrey Police & Crime Commissioner (OPCC), with
the revenue and capital budgets approved by the Police & Crime
Commissioner in January 2018 for the financial year
2018/19.

The Panel asked about
value for money on some services and suggested a joint enterprise
for Insurance Services. The finance
officer reported that there was already a joint enterprise in place
across the South East Forces. However,
due to rising costs of police insurance, most companies approached
had declined to bid for provision of this service. He also stated that the end of year overspend was
due to insurance premiums and the over establishment of officers in
post. This will be partly offset by an
expected rise in vacancies by the end of the year and reduced spend
on IT.

It was confirmed that
insurance claims were greater than the premium which was why
companies were refusing insurance. They
were looking at whether they should self-insure.

There had been a
historic overspend on IT but the new Head of IT had gone through
all of the current IT projects looking at value for
money. The overspend on agency staff
was mainly for specialist staff such as IT specialists.

The Commissioner
reported that he had requested a formal workforce planning report
and also mentioned that the large overtime bills had reduced
lately.

1.
The Panel received this report which detailed the Office of the
Police & Crime Commissioner’s (OPCC) financial
performance at Month 6 for the 2018/19 financial year. The report
compared the expenditure and income, incurred and received by the
Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner up to the 30
September, against the financial budget approved by the Police
& Crime Commissioner (PCC) in January 2018.

Jane Anderson was appointed by
the previous Police & Crime Commissioner to the role ofAssistant Police & Crime Commissioner (Victims)
in April 2013. The report sets out the objectives set for Mrs
Anderson and the work she has undertaken to deliver
them.

1.The Panel asked questions around the reduced working
days of the Assistant Police & Crime Commissioner (APCC), Jane
Anderson. She explained that she had
reduced to working one day per week and that she had ensured that
her role was embedded into the organisation so that when her
contract was finished the work would continue.

2.The APCC spoke about a report she had written for
the police on the impact of unauthorised traveller incursions on a
small community. She explained that it had been an interesting
exercise in looking into the coping strategies with
businesses. The Panel requested a copy
of this report.

3.The Commissioner paid tribute to the APCC who he
described as highly regarded. He also
explained that the APCC had always been on a one-year rolling
contract. It was her intention not to
work beyond the end of the current contract which was due to expire
in April 2019.

4.The Chairman thanked the APCC on behalf of the Panel
for the work she had done and for reporting to the Panel
meetings.

RESOLVED:

That the report was noted.

Actions/Further Information to be Provided:

To request a redacted copy of the report the
APCC had written for the police on the impact of unauthorised
traveller incursions on a small community.

The Panel received an update report on the PCC
decision not to take on governance of the Surrey Fire and Rescue
Service.The PCC
remained convinced that more could be done to align blue-light
services in Surrey and that it was in Surrey’s best interests
to continue to focus on collaborative work between police and fire
and between the fire services in Surrey and Sussex.

1.The Panel received an update report on the
county’s Joint Enforcement Teams (JETs), providing some
background, an overview of the powers available and progress
reports on the county’s current JETs.

2.Members were very concerned about
pavement/obstructive parking and asked about powers for JETs to
ticket in these instances. The PCC was
sympathetic and understood the problem but that the issue was
complicated and JETs could not be given police parking powers as
that would be unlawful. He had written
to the Department for Transport who were running a consultation and
had asked the Chief Constable if there was more that could be done
who had subsequently tasked the ACC with this.

3.Some Members spoke of how JETs were working in their
boroughs. One Member spoke of a local
initiative at schools in Woking, whereby they have a school
enforcement rota and name and shame offenders. It was also reported that Guildford JET were
effective with parking control around schools. It was stated that any scheme around schools would
rely on the co-operation of the school Heads and that not one size
fits all. The Panel were also reminded to consider data protection
when considering schemes.

RESOLVED:

That the report was noted.

Actions/Further Information to be Provided:

None.

Cllr Graham Ellwood
returned to the meeting during discussion on this item.

Members asked several questions
relating to crime figures to which the Commissioner
responded:

·Burglary rates have seen a spike around 18 months
ago, but were largely comparable to the rates of 10 years
ago.

·The percentage of crimes solved was going down
whilst volumes of crime were increasing. There was also increased reporting. This was a national problem and Surrey ranked
better than most other forces.

·The Commissioner also reported that Surrey Heath
Neighbourhood Team had recently won an award.

RESOLVED:

That the report was noted.

Actions/Further Information to be Provided:

That the crime figure report that was due to
go to the informal meeting be sent to the Panel once it had been
amended.

1.The Chairman raised an issue regarding the custody
suite at Salfords that had come to his attention. The Commissioner
stated that there were issues that could not be discussed in public
but said that checks were made to ensure that detainees were able
to get home when leaving the suite. He
asked that Members let him know of any specific
incidents.

2.Mental health issues were raised regarding effects
on police teams, what training was available and how mental health
first aid was being rolled out. The
Commissioner stated that Surrey was a trailblazer for training in
mental health.

3.A question was raised regarding the lack of CCTV
cover in Guildford on Friday and Saturday evenings. The Commissioner stated that police were
overstretched and that a new CCTV strategy was being
developed. He also said that CCTV was
very expensive and patchy and not a police priority. He highlighted
Sussex as having a good joint partnership with CCTV.